Ex Parte Batzinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2008

10706472 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte THOMAS JAMES BATZINGER,
WEI LI, MICHAEL SCOTT LAMPHERE,
THOMAS WALTER ROGENSKI, BIN WEI,
CARL STEPHEN LESTER and ROBERT JOHN FILKINS
______________

Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Decided: June 30, 2008
_______________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, THOMAS A. WALTZ, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicants appeal to the Board from the decision of the Primary
Examiner finally rejecting claims 1 through 21 in the Office Action mailed
December 22, 2006 (Office Action). 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002);
37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a) (2006).

Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a method of monitoring
machining in an electrochemical machining tool assembly, and is
representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of monitoring machining in an electrochemical
machining tool assembly having at least one electrode arranged across a gap
from a workpiece, the electrode being energized by application of a potential
difference ΔV between the electrode and the workpiece, said method
comprising:
exciting at least one ultrasonic sensor to direct an ultrasonic wave
toward a surface of the electrode;
receiving a reflected ultrasonic wave from the surface of the electrode
using the ultrasonic sensor of the electrode and from a surface of the
workpiece; and
synchronizing the excitation of the ultrasonic sensor to a machining
cycle of the electrochemical machining tool, the synchronizing comprising
delaying the excitation of the ultrasonic sensor a dwell time Td after a
reduction of the potential difference ΔV across the electrode and the
workpiece occurs, such that the exciting and receiving are performed during
a plurality of machining off-times.
The Examiner relies upon the evidence in these references (Ans. 2):
Li US 6,355,156 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Klocke US 2003/0079989 A1 May 1, 2003
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 6):
claims 1, 2, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Li (Ans. 3);
claims 3, 9, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Li (Ans. 5); and
claims 3 through 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Li
in view of Klocke (Ans. 7).
2
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
Appellants argue the claims in the first ground of rejection as a group;
claims 3 and 9 of the second ground of rejection with specificity; and claim
4 of the third ground of rejection with specificity. Br. 7, 9, 10-13, and
13-15. Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims 1, 3, 4, and 9, and on
the remaining claims as argued in the Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2006).
The principal issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds
of rejection advanced on appeal which, of course, turn on the issues
addressed below.
The plain language of independent claim 1 specifies, with reference to
Specification Figures 1-4, a method of monitoring machining of any
workpiece 12 with any manner of electrochemical machining tool assembly
10 which has at least one electrode, such as 26, 28, arranged with a gap
between the electrode and the workpiece 12, with a potential difference ∆V
between the electrode and the workpiece, and at least one ultrasonic sensor,
such as 42, 44, which can be in the electrode. Illustrated workpiece 12 is an
airfoil section of a rotor blade. The method comprises at least, among other
things, the steps of (1) exciting the ultrasonic sensor at least to the extent that
an ultrasonic wave is directed toward any surface of the electrode;
(2) the ultrasonic sensor receiving a reflected ultrasonic wave from that
surface, wherein the reflected ultrasonic wave comprises at least a plurality
of reflected waves from the electrode surface and any surface of the
workpiece; and (3) synchronizing the excitation of the ultrasonic sensor with
a machining cycle of the assembly, wherein the synchronizing step
3
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
comprises at least delaying the excitation of the sensor any dwell time Td
after any reduction in the potential difference ∆V occurs, “such that the
exciting and receiving are performed during a plurality of machining off-
times.” See Spec., e.g., ¶¶ 0017-0021.
Dependent claim 3 specifies a “continuous” assembly wherein the
potential difference ∆V is repeatedly reduced to generate a series of
measurement periods ∆tM. We interpret this claim in the context of
independent claim 1 to encompass methods that include a continuously
pulsed ECM tool assembly with ultrasonic sensor excitation synchronized
with a plurality of machining off-times. Dependent claim 4 specifies the
dwell time Td range of seven milliseconds to about 15 milliseconds.
Dependent claim 9 specifies an assembly with two ultrasonic sensors each of
which directs an ultrasonic wave toward a surface of its respective electrode,
wherein the excitation of one of the sensors is delayed any dwell time Td, the
excitation of the other sensor is delayed any dwell time Td plus an offset δ,
and “the offset δ is at least the time required to attenuate the ultrasonic wave
from the first one of the ultrasonic sensors.”
We find Li would have evinced that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have been familiar with the structure and operation of an
electrochemical machining (ECM) assembly including a gap between the
cutting surface of an electrode and a workpiece, wherein the gap is filled
with “a pressurized, flowing, aqueous electrolyte” that acts as an electrical
current carrier and removes and carries away metal ions from the workpiece.
Li col. 1, ll. 11-26. Li further evinces that these persons would have known
that the gap size should be maintained within a proper range to provide
4
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
dimensional accuracy of the workpiece, such that “[m]onitoring and
controlling the gap size between the tool and the workpiece, or directly
monitoring the workpiece thickness, is important for ECM tolerance
control,” and would have used “suitable means for sensing gap size or
workpiece thickness” to provide ECM accuracy control. Li col. 1, ll. 27-53.
Li further evinces that these persons would have known that one factor in
affecting a change in gap size is a change in conductivity of the electrolyte
because of “gas bubble generation on the tool surface.” Li col. 1, ll. 46-49.
We find Li would have described to one of skill and one of ordinary
skill in this art the use of an ultrasonic sensor in an ECM assembly to
measure both the gap size and the workpiece thickness, which assembly “is
particularly applicable to the ECM of turbine compressor airfoils.” Li col. 2,
ll. 10-16. Li’s method to operate the assembly comprises, among other
steps, flowing an electrolytic fluid in the gap between the tool and the
workpiece, using the ultrasonic sensor to generating an acoustic wave
through the fluid to the workpiece and receive a reflected wave, and using
the reflected wave to calculate the thickness of the size of the gap between
the tool and the workpiece and/or the thickness of the workpiece. Li col. 2,
ll. 17-36, and col. 2, l. 62, to col. 3, l. 13. The reflected wave includes a
wave reflected from the cutting surface of the tool and a wave reflected from
a working surface of the workpiece, which waves have different arrival
times at the sensor and are used in this respect in the calculation step. Li col.
2, ll. 37-48.
Li illustrates the method, with reference to Li Figures 1 and 2, with
ECM tool assembly 10 with the cutting surfaces 22a, 22b of electrodes 12a,
5
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
12b on either side of and capable of moving toward and away from airfoil
workpiece 16, wherein ultrasonic sensor 14 is embedded in electrode 12a.
Li col. 3, ll. 24-61, and col. 4, ll. 14-15. Electrolyte 18 is pumped through
the gap between the surfaces of electrodes 12a, 12b and workpiece 16 to
provide for current flow and remove material machined from workpiece 16.
Li col. 3, l. 62 to col. 4, l. 13.
Li discloses ultrasonic sensor 14 is connected to pulser-receiver
device 32 which is connected to data acquisition system 34 that controls the
operation of ultrasonic sensor 14 and calculates the thickness of gap 26
between electrode 12a and workpiece 16 as well as the thickness of
workpiece 16. Li col. 4, ll. 15-22. The acoustic wave generated by
ultrasonic sensor 14 is reflected back to the sensor from the cutting surface
22a of electrode 12a with a first arrival time and from surface 24a of
workpiece 16 with a second arrival time, which arrival times are used by
data acquisition system 34 for calculation. Li col. 4, l. 22 to col. 5, l. 5.
Li discloses
The acoustic wave velocity in electrolytic fluid 18 can vary due
to changes in density of the electrolytic fluid. . . . During the
electrochemical machining process, gas bubbles are usually
generated at cutting surfaces 22 of electrochemical machining
tool 12. The gas bubbles may cause ultrasonic acoustic wave
attenuation. D.C. power supply 20 may be turned off for a brief
period of time, such as for the time interval used in pulsed
electrochemical machining, or the voltage of D.C. power supply
20 may be reduced so as to minimize the generation of gas
bubbles in order for a more accurate measurement to be made.
Li col. 5, ll. 31-45.
6
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
The contents of Klocke are unnecessary to our decision. See In re
Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 349 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
1302-04 (CCPA 1976).
The Examiner finds “it is well understood that pulsed ECM has
multiple off-time cycles.” Office Action 3; Ans. 9. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s finding. Br. in entirety. See, e.g., In re Ahlert,
424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (“Where the appellant has failed to
challenge a fact judicially noticed and it is clear that he has been amply
apprised of such finding so as to have the opportunity to make such
challenge, the board's finding will be considered conclusive by this court.”).
We consider first the ground of rejection of § 102(b). There is no
dispute that Li employs an ECM tool assembly that satisfies the apparatus
requirements of claim 1 including the ultrasonic sensor. We determine the
Examiner establishes that, prima facie, as a matter of fact, Li’s disclosure at
col. 5, ll. 37-45, in the context of the disclosure of the reference as a whole
including the evidence of knowledge in the prior art, provides a description
of the claimed method encompassed by claim 1, as we interpret this claim
above, to one skilled in this art within the meaning of this statutory
provision. Ans. 3-5 and 8-9.
The Examiner finds that one skilled in this art would recognize in Li’s
disclosed method “an inherent delay (i.e., a dwell time) between the decrease
in DC voltage and measurement made by ultrasonic sensor due to the
inherent time it takes to transmit electronic signals.” Ans. 3-4. The
Examiner further finds that “synchronizing is inherent in operation of the
ultrasonic sensor with the ECM tool in that excitation of the ultrasonic tool
7
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
is suggested during the off time interval of pulsed electrochemical
machining” because “[m]ultiple measurements of the ultrasonic sensor
would be inherently made in that the ultrasonic sensor is used in a method of
ECM monitoring, and thus requiring multiple thickness measurement;” and
in view of the “operation of the ultrasonic sensor during machining
off-times (off cycle of pulsed ECM . . . ).” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner still
further finds that inherently “making multiple measurements of the
ultrasonic sensor in that the ultrasonic sensor is used in a method of ECM
monitoring, and thus requiring multiple thickness measurements.” Ans. 5.
We are of the opinion that the Examiner, in stating the findings, uses
the term “inherent” and “inherently” in the sense of whether the reference
would describe a process to one skilled in the art given this person’s
knowledge of the art, and not whether a disclosed process includes a
particular step or result. Compare, e.g., In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152
(Fed. Cir. 1995), and cases cited therein (“[A] skilled artisan could take [the
reference’s] teachings in combination with his own knowledge and be in
possession of the [claimed system] device.”), and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,
826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.” (citation omitted)), with, e.g., In re Oelrich,
666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) ( “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may
result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. (citations
omitted).” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981), and In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he Board’s analysis rests
8
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
upon the very kind of probability or possibility – the odd use of fasteners
with other than their mates – that this court has pointed out is insufficient to
establish inherency.”), and Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948
F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (silence in a reference about an inherent
characteristic may be explained by extrinsic evidence which “must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing
described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill”).
Thus, one skilled in this art armed with the knowledge in the art
would have found in Li a description of a problem with ultrasonic wave
attenuation caused by gas bubbles in the electrolytic fluid in the gap between
the electrodes and the workpiece, and would have reasonably recognized
from Li’s description of the method of solving the problem by reducing the
gas bubbles in the fluid to increase measurement accuracy, that bubble
minimization would require at least a short period following the reduction or
turn-off of electric power. In this respect, we further find that in addition to
the method step of turning-off or reducing the electric power supplied to the
electrodes as a means to minimize the gas bubbles as described by Li, this
person as well as one of ordinary skill in this art would have further readily
observed that once the electric power was reduced or turned-off, the
pressurized flow of electrolytic fluid through the gap between the workpiece
and the electrodes would remove gas bubbles at least to some extent, thus
further minimizing this problem. See, e.g., In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 243
(CCPA 1965); In re Goodman, 339 F.2d 228, 232-33 (CCPA 1964).
9
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
On this basis, we find one skilled in this art armed with the knowledge
in the art following Li would have configured Li’s data acquisition system
and pulser-receiver to excite the ultrasonic sensor at a time of bubble
minimization, that is, a time after the power to the electrodes has been
reduced or turned-off, thus synchronizing excitation of the sensor with
adjustment of the power supply. This person would have further recognized
that Li describes the solution with respect to pulsed ECM with its multiple
off-time cycles, and would have taken measurements during plural off-
cycles as monitoring gap size and workpiece thickness is recognized in the
art as important for dimensional accuracy in the workpiece.
Accordingly, on this record, Li, prima facie, as a matter of fact
describes to and places in possession of one skilled in the ECM arts, each
and every limitation of the claimed method encompassed by claim 1,
arranged as required therein. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477
(Fed. Cir. 1997), and cases cited therein; In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 707
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Upon reconsideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions, we are of the opinion that Appellants have not successfully
rebutted the prima facie case of anticipation. We find that, contrary to
Appellants’ contentions, Li in fact discloses a data acquisition system
coupled with a pulser-receiver means to control the excitation of the
ultrasonic sensor, receipt of plural reflected ultrasonic acoustic waves, and
calculation of gap width and workpiece thickness from the reflected waves.
Br. 8. Thus, one skilled in this art following Li can synchronize Li’s ECM
tooling assembly to take measurements during off-time cycles of pulsed
10
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
electrochemical machining when gas bubbles are minimized according to
Li’s described method for solving the wave attenuation problem caused by
gas bubbles. Accordingly, we are not persuaded otherwise by Appellants’
contentions. Br. 8-9. Indeed, Appellants have not established that one
skilled in this art would expect an immediate minimization of gas bubbles on
the cutting surfaces of the electrodes at the precise time the power is turned
off.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of anticipation found in Li with
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for non-anticipation
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1,
2, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, and 20 would have been anticipated as a matter
of fact under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Turning now to the ground of rejection of claims 3 and 9 under
§ 103(a), we determine that Li, the scope of which we determined above,
provides evidence supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed invention
encompassed by claims 3 and 9, as we interpreted these claims above, would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ECM arts
familiar with machining airfoil sections of turbine blades. With respect to
claim 3, the Examiner determines this person in following Li would have
synchronized the excitation of the ultrasonic sensor with the off-time cycles
of pulsed electrochemical machining which minimizes gas bubbles. Ans. 5-
6. With respect to claim 9, the Examiner determines that this person would
have modified Li’s ECM tool assembly to include an ultrasonic sensor in
electrode 12b “in order to monitor the second side of the airfoil” workpiece,
11
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
and would have recognized that “an offset time between ultrasonic sensor
signal excitation is a necessary adjustment inherent to a control system
employing multiple emitting/receiving sensors in order to avoid attenuation
or interference.” Ans. 6 and 9-10.
We interpreted claim 3 to included pulsed ECM machining. Based on
the same factual foundation we found above (see above pp. 7-9), we
determine here that one of ordinary skill in this art armed with the
knowledge in the art following Li1 would have configured Li’s data
acquisition system and pulser-receiver to excite the ultrasonic sensor at a
time of bubble minimization, that is, a time after the power to the electrodes
has been reduced or turned-off, thus synchronizing excitation of the sensor
with adjustment of the power supply. As the Examiner points out, this
person would have recognized that Li describes the solution with respect to
pulsed ECM with its multiple off-time cycles, and would have taken
measurements during plural off-cycles to monitor gap size and workpiece
thickness because the art recognizes that frequent measurements are
important for dimensional accuracy in the workpiece. On this basis, we are
of the opinion that Li would have described the claimed method
encompassed by claim 3, thus anticipating this claim. It is well settled that

1 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings
thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Preda, 401 F.2d at 826 (CCPA 1968),
presuming skill on the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
12
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
“anticipation is the ultimate of obviousness.” See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed Cir. 1991), citing In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 794 (CCPA 1982).
With respect to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably added an ultrasonic sensor to
the other electrode of Li’s ECM tool assembly in the reasonable expectation
of taking measurements with ultrasonic acoustic waves to monitor gap size
and workpiece thickness from the perspective of both sensors because of art
reorganization of the importance of measurements for dimensional accuracy
in the workpiece. We further agree with the Examiner that this person
would have readily recognized the necessity to keep separate the ultrasonic
acoustic waves and the respective reflected ultrasonic acoustic waves for
measurement accuracy. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727, 1739 (2007)(a patent claiming a combination of elements known in
the prior art is obvious if the improvement is no more than the predictable
use of the prior art elements according to their established functions); B.F.
Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
1996) (“When obviousness is based on a particular prior art reference, there
must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of
that reference. This suggestion or motivation need not be expressly stated.”
(citation omitted)); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well
settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance
unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and we are of the opinion
that such is not the case here.”).
13
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
Accordingly, we determine that prima facie one of ordinary skill in
this art routinely following the teachings of Li would have reasonably
arrived at the claimed method encompassed by claims 3 and 9 without resort
to Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g., KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41
(“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been
obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”);
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re O’Farrell, 853
F.2d 894, 903-04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under § 103, all that is
required is a reasonable expectation of success.” (citations omitted)); Sovish,
769 F.2d at 743 (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the
art); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) (“Having established
that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as
put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common
knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art
without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”).
Upon reconsideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions, we are of the opinion that Appellants have not successfully
rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness of claims 3 and 9. With respect
to claim 3, we are no more persuaded here than we were above by
Appellants’ contentions that Li does not disclose means to control excitation
of the ultrasonic sensor. See above pp. 10-11; Br. 11. With respect to claim
9, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions that there would have been no
reasonable expectation of success in using an ultrasonic sensor in the other
14
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
electrode of Li’s EMC tool assembly and thus, the situation is one of
“obvious to try.” Br. 12. Indeed, the measurement of the gap between
workpiece 16 and electrode 12b of Li’ assembly would be a predictable
result within the ordinary skill in this art. Thus, this person would have had
a reasonable expectation of success of obtaining more precise measurements
of the gap between the workpiece and each of the electrodes and of the
thickness of the workpiece in making this modification even though the
modification was not expressly suggested by Li. See also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at
1742 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp.”). With respect to claims 19 and 21, Appellants rely on
“analogous” contentions made with respect to claim 1 and do not raise
further specific contentions with respect to either of these claims. Br. 12-13.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief have not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions
over the prior art.”).
With respect to the ground of rejection of claim 4 under § 103(a), we
determine that Li, the scope of which we determined above, provides
evidence supporting the Examiner’s case that the claimed invention
encompassed by claim 4 as we interpreted this claim above, would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art. The Examiner
15
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
determines in following the teachings of Li, “one of ordinary skill would
realize that dwell time is directly related to bubble minimization, in that, the
longer the electrode is not energized, the more time there is for impinging
flow to clear the electrode surface of bubbles to allow an accurate
measurement.” Thus, the Examiner concludes that this person would have
recognized from Li that minimizing gas bubble is a result effective variable
and would have optimized gas bubble minimization. Ans. 7-8. We agree
with the Examiner’s determination in view of Li’s description of the method
for solving the gas bubble problem with respect to off-time cycles of pulsed
electrochemical machining which we discussed above. See, e.g., In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456-58 (CCPA 1955) (it is not inventive to discover by
routine experimentation optimum or workable ranges for general conditions
disclosed in the prior art).
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that prima facie one of ordinary
skill in this art routinely following the teachings of Li would have
reasonably arrived at the claimed method encompassed by claim 4 without
resort to Appellants’ Specification.
Upon reconsideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions, we are of the opinion that Appellants have not successfully
rebutted the prima facie case of obviousness of claim 4. We determine that
Li alone places one of ordinary skill in this art in possession of the method
encompassed by claim 4, and accordingly, we do not need to consider
Klocke in this respect. See Br. 13. With respect to the remaining claims
subject to this ground of rejection, Appellants rely on “analogous”
contentions made with respect to claim 1 and do not raise further specific
16
Appeal 2008-3117
Application 10/706,472
contentions with respect to either of these claims. Br. 13 and 14-15. As was
the case above, arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006); cf. Baxter Travenol, 952 F.2d at 392.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Li alone
and as combined with Klocke with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of
and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 3 through 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

tc

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
PATENT DOCKET RM. BLDG. K1-4A59
MISKAYUNA, NY 12309
17